Author Archives: David Pepper

FAQ on Middle East and Divestment

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions: Divestment

(Detroit, Michigan – June 20, 2014) – By a margin of seven votes, the 221st General Assembly (2014) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a measure recommending that the Board of Pensions, the Foundation, and its members divest from three corporations whose products it believes contribute to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The companies—Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard, and Motorola Solutions—are used by the Israeli government in the occupied territories and are not in compliance with the General Assembly’s police on socially responsible investing. The PC(USA) has a decades-long history of social responsible investments. The measure also says that this action does not indicate an alignment with the overall global Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement. It affirms the importance of economic measures and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians that support and advance a negotiated two-state solution, and encourages Presbyterians to travel to the Holy Land to give broad support to the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities throughout the Middle East. The assembly also called for a study to determine whether a two-state solution continues to be viable. Regarding Zionism Unsettled, the assembly declared that the publication does not represent the views of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Why does the church care about Israel/Palestine?

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly has long supported two viable states as a solution to the Israel Palestine conflict. The challenge has been how to respond to the human rights violations and suffering resulting from the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The church’s policy, based on General Assembly actions, includes

* promoting a just peace in the Middle East;
* acting in solidarity with Palestinian Christian mission partners and other church partners across the Middle East;
ending the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza; and
advocating for the right for Israelis and Palestinians “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

What is the point of divestment?
For Presbyterians individually, and collectively, investments offer not only financial return, but represent a form of constructive partnership for good in the world. Divestment is always a last resort, as a matter of faithful stewardship, when it becomes apparent that an investment can no longer be part of a constructive partnership for good. Presbyterians believe firmly that their investments must be in alignment with their values.

What were the recommendations to the (221st) General Assembly (2014)?
MRTI (Mission Responsibility Through Investment) has found three corporations -Caterpillar,Hewlett Packard, and Motorola- not in compliance with General Assembly policy on socially responsible investing. MRTI is a General Assembly committee that implements General Assembly policies on socially responsible investing. MRTI is a General Assembly committee that implements General Assembly policies on socially responsible investing. MRTI has repeatedly, and unsuccessfully,
reached out to these corporations and asked for resolution, but no resolution has been forthcoming. As a last resort, the General Assembly recommended divestment.

Why is the General Assembly focusing on these three corporations?

The General Assembly developed criteria for corporate engagement calling on corporations to confine their business activity to peaceful pursuits and refrain from allowing their products or services facilitating or supporting violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians. MRTI found these companies to be out of compliance with these criteria, as well as resistant to change and further dialogue:
* Caterpillar provides bulldozers used in the destruction of Palestinian homes and for clearing land of structures and fruit and olive tree groves in preparation for construction of the barrier wall.
* Hewlett-Packard has extensive involvement with the Israeli army and provides electronic systems at checkpoints, logistics and communications systems to support the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, as well as business relationships with illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Motorola Solutions provides military communications and surveillance systems in illegal Israeli settlements.

What actions have been considered by past General Assemblies?
The divestment began at the 2004 General Assembly (GA), which instructed MRTI to initiate a process of “phased, selective divestment” related to corporations doing business in Israel. The General Assembly’s process is phased and selected because the focus is not blanket disinvestment, but rather an established process of phrased corporate engagement, with few companies, with corporate change as its goal. Divestment is the last resort, when change is no longer considered likely. Since 2004, GAs have directed MRTI to use the church’s customary corporate engagement process to ensure that church investments are made only in companies engaged in peaceful pursuits in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

In 2012, the GA approved an additional layer of corporate engagement: the boycott of all Israeli products produced in the occupied Palestinian Territories. This is not a cultural or academic boycott, or a boycott against any product made in Israel. Instead, it is a call to recognize that factories in illegal settlements extend the occupation and prevent a just peace between Israel and Palestine.

The 2012 GA also directed the Presbyterian Foundation and the Presbyterian Mission Agency to make positive investments in Palestinian businesses to make a difference in the lives of those who are most vulnerable, to help in the development of viable infrastructure for a future Palestinian state, and to aid in job creation and economic development. Three investments have been made in solar energy, microfinance, and education.

What is the position of the church on Israel and Palestine?

In 2010, the General Assembly reaffirmed its historical commitments with respect to the region and called for:
* an immediate cessation of all violence, whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians;
* the reaffirmation of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions;
* the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and diversion of water resources;
* an immediate freeze both on the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and on the Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land and buildings in East Jerusalem;
* the relocation by Israel of the Separation Barrier to the 1967 border;
* the withholding of U.S. government aid to the State of Israel as long as Israel persists in creating new West Bank settlements;
* continuing corporate engagement through the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment with companies profiting from the sale and use of their products for non-peaceful purposes and/or the violation of human rights;
* a shared status for Jerusalem;
* equal rights for Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel;
* the cessation of systematic violations of human rights by any party specifically,
* practices of administrative detention, collective punishment, the torture of prisoners and suspects, home demolitions and evictions, and the deportation of dissidents;
*the immediate resumption by Israel and Palestine of negotiations toward a two-state solution.

What have other denominations done on the issue of divestment?
A snapshot of information:
World Council of Churches
*In 2005, the World Council of Churches passed a resolution commending the selective divestment resolution passed by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in 2004 saying that the previous resolution “in both method and manner, uses criteria rooted in faith and calls members to do the things that make for peace.”
United Church of Christ
* The United Church of Christ endorsed a range of economic leverages that included divestment, but church leaders did not commit their pension or foundation assets to a divestment plan.
United Methodist Church
* In 2012, the United Methodist Church voted to reject the divestment initiative regarding businesses that deal with Israel, including “Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett- Packard.”
Episcopal Church
* In 2012, the Episcopal Church adopted a resolution at its General Convention Assembly that supported “a negotiated two-state solution” and “positive investment” rather than divestment from Israel.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [updated 6/5/14]
* In an action which underscored the call for economic initiatives with respect to Israel and Palestine that included the possibilities of 1) purchasing products from Palestinian providers and 2) exploration of the feasibility of refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements, the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly voted to exclude the option of divestiture in the context of the church’s exploration of its investment activities.
Church of England
* The General Synod has voted for disinvestment from Israel. United Church of Canada [updated 5/27/14]
The 41st General Council in August 2012 called on United Church members to take concrete actions to support the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Those actions include worship, prayer, and study; economic action focused on settlement goods; and support for trust-building programs between Palestinians and Israelis.

What is the position of the church on anti-Semitism?
“We condemn anti-Semitism in the strongest terms. While reaffirming our close spiritualties with the Jewish people, we wish to state unequivocally that authentic Christianity can have no complicity in anti-Semitic attitudes or actions.” (1990)

What is the position of the church on Zionism?
The General Assembly has not taken a position explicitly in regard to Zionism. The church has reaffirmed as recently as 2010, “Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions,” but it has also voted to “challenge and encourage discussion of theological interpretations that confuse biblical prophesies and affirmations of covenant, promise, and land, which are predicated on justice, righteousness, and mercy, with political statehood that asserts itself through military might, repressive discrimination, abuse of human rights, and other actions that do not reveal a will to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God,” in its 2003 paper “End the Occupation Now.”
What is the actual language of the divestment measure?
04-04. On Supporting Middle East Peacemaking
The PC(USA) has a long standing commitment to peace in Israel and Palestine. We recognize the complexity of the issues, the decades-long struggle, the pain suffered and inflicted by policies and practices of both the Israeli government and Palestinian entities. We further acknowledge and confess our own complicity in both the historic and current suffering of Israeli and Palestinian yearning for justice and reconciliation, the 221st General Assembly (2014) recommends the following:
1. Reaffirm Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with the United Nations resolutions.
2. Declare its commitment to a two-state solution in which a secure and universally recognized State of Israel lives alongside a free, viable, and secure state for the Palestinian people.
3. Instruct the Presbyterian Foundation and the Board of Pensions of the PC(USA), to divest from Caterpillar, Inc., Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions, in accord with our church’s decades-long socially responsible investment (SRI) history, and not to reinvest in these companies until the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of the PC(USA) is fully satisfied that product sales and services by these companies are no longer in conflict with our church investment policy. This action on divestment is not to be construed or represented by any organization of the PC(USA) as divestment from the State of Israel, or an alignment with or endorsement of the global BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement.
4. Reaffirm PC(USA)’s commitment to interfaith dialog and partnerships with the American Jewish, Muslim friends and Palestinian Christians and call for all presbyteries and congregations within the PC(USA) to include interfaith dialogue and relationship-building as part of their own engagement in working for a just peace.
5. Call for all foreign aid given by the U.S. government—including aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority—to be comprehensively and transparently accounted to the American people and held to the same standards of compliance with all applicable laws.
6. Call for church advocacy for foreign-aid accountability to be directed toward its universal adherence rather than targeted for selective application to some recipients and not others.
7. Encourage Presbyterians to travel to the Holy Land, and give broad support to the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities throughout the Middle East.
8. Affirm the importance of economic measures and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians that support and advance a negotiated two-state solution.
9. Urge all church institutions to give careful consideration to possible investments in Israel-Palestine that advance peace and improve the lives of Palestinians and Israelis.

What is the language of the measure regarding a two-state solution?
04-01. On Reviewing General Assembly Policy Regarding the Two-State Solution in Israel Palestine—From the Presbytery of San Francisco.
“1. Instruct the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) to do the following:
“a. Provide a comprehensive history of the establishment of General Assembly policies favoring a two-state solution in Israel Palestine.
“b. Prepare a report to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), utilizing the report of the Middle East Study Committee approved by the 219th General Assembly (2010)—Breaking Down the Walls (Minutes, 2010, Part I, pp. 1021ff); the subsequent follow-up report by the Middle East Monitoring Group to the 220th General Assembly (2012) (Minutes, 2012, Part I, pp. 1413ff); and relevant and recent reports by the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council, the World Council of Churches, other corresponding ecumenical partners, and reliable human rights organizations that achieves the following:
“(1) Provides the most up-to-date information regarding all aspects of the Israeli occupation of Palestine including
“(a) the present status and pace of illegal settlement building;
“(b) the appropriation of Palestinian land and natural resources;
“(c) the restriction of movement on Palestinian citizens in Palestine;
“(d) the extent to which human rights are denied to the Palestinian people.
“(2) Examines present General Assembly statements about the viability of a Palestinian state and honestly evaluates these statements in light of the most recent developments regarding the true facts on the ground in Palestine;
“(3) Makes a recommendation about whether the General Assembly should continue to call for a two-state solution in Israel Palestine, or take a neutral stance that seeks not to determine for Israelis and Palestinians what the right “solution” should be.
“(4) Makes other policy recommendations related to findings from this report.
“c. Consult with responsible parties representing the concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians in preparation of this report.
“d. Consult also with appropriate, official PC(USA) General Assembly entities in the preparation of this report, including staffing teams, mission networks, and national caucuses.
“2. Provide a study guide for the report to the 222nd General Assembly (2016) that will help inform the whole church of the situation on the ground in Palestine, pointing out the enormous difficulty of helping ’in the development of a viable infrastructure for a future Palestinian state’ (action taken by the 220th General Assembly-2012). This study guide should honestly point out that:
“a. For every two-year period occurring between General Assembly meetings, Palestinians are suffering an increasing loss of their human rights, freedom, livelihoods, property, and even their lives;
“b. Simple, financial investment in a completely occupied land where the occupiers are relentless and unwavering regarding their occupation is not enough to dismantle the matrix of that occupation or dramatically change the vast majority of communities or individual lives that are bowed and broken by systematic and intentional injustice.”

What is the language of the regarding measure the publication Zionism Unsettled
04-10
“The 221st General Assembly (2014) declares that Zionism Unsettled does not represent the views of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and directs all Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) entities to express this statement in all future catalogs, print or online resources.”“

Final Blog from GA

I just have to say, the singing is amazing (not mine of course). Over 800 people singing makes a very, very powerful sound!

From the Mid Council Commission II Committee, an overture was passed to “Direct that a new configuration of synod boundaries be established [based on an emerging sense of purpose, partnership, context, and call through a collaborative process between the synods and presbyteries resulting in no more than ten to twelve synods. The synods will report to the 222nd General Assembly (2016).”

The language used in the overture was “To recommend to the 223rd General Assembly (2018) the boundary changes necessary to achieve a total of no more than 10-12 synods, if there remain synods and presbyteries that have been unable or unwilling to engage in a collaborative process of reconfiguration.”

The most anticipated issue for the day was an overture from Middle East Issues calling for the divestment of Presbyterian Foundation and Presbyterian Board of Pension investments to be divested from three corporations (Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, Inc.and Motorola Solutions) “and not to reinvest in these companies until the Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) Committee of the PC(USA) is fully satisfied that product sales and services by these companies are no longer in conflict with our church investment policy. This action on divestment does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement.”

This is a very complex issue! The reference to ‘our church investment policy’ concerns companies that are making a profit in in situations that are non-peaceful, in this case in the midst of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The major controversy surrounds the perception that by divesting from these companies we appear, to some, to be divesting from Israel itself and, therefore, appear to be siding with Palestine in the conflict. That perception is exacerbated by the global BDS movement, which is aimed directly at divesting from companies doing business with Israel.

Divestment from Israel is not the intent of the overture, but sometimes perception prevails. Having heard from many Jewish ecumenical partners, the perception of divestment of Israel seems to be prevailing among them.

The other side of the argument is that more often than not, it is only when economic pressure is applied that progress for peace is made. The Palestinians have made a commitment to non-violent means to accomplish this peace, and what they are asking us to do is hardly heroic – stop supporting companies who are allowing their product to oppress us and destroy our homes.

That’s a simplified summary of the issue, as the debate (including amendments, minority reports, and more amendments) lasted for over three hours in the Plenary session. Many had strong feelings on the issue, and many had conflicted feelings on it. It was closest vote on any overture at GA this year. It passed 310 in favor, 303 against.

This will be my final blog from GA, due to an early morning of meetings, and then I will be traveling home. Yay! This has been an invaluable experience of meeting new friends, seeing how our highest church governing body works, and learning about the things that presbyterians care deeply about. It has been an opportunity to become aware of and informed about the ministries and mission of our denomination. I understand why people who have served as Commissioners to GA continue to attend subsequent GA meetings as observers. You will experience the passion of the church and the Spirit of God here. Passion and Spirit will catch you off guard, overwhelm you and deepen your faith in this divine/human institution called the church. It has been a privilege!
Dave

FAQ on Same-Gender Marriage

 

FAQs – Same-Gender Marriage

(Detroit—June 19, 2014)—The 221st General Assembly (2014) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today approved a measure giving pastors the discretion to perform same-gender marriages in states where it is legal. It offers the same discretion for churches with regard to the use of church property. The measure takes effect upon the conclusion of the General Assembly on Saturday, June 21, 2014. A proposed amendment to change the Constitution to include same-gender marriages in the church’s Constitution passed the General Assembly but must be ratified by a majority of the church’s 172 regional presbyteries. Presbyteries have one year to vote on the proposed amendment. If a majority ratifies the amendment, it would take effect June 21, 2015.

  1. Are congregations and/or pastors required to participate in/host such weddings?“In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word and the leading of the Holy Spirit.” No pastor is compelled to perform a service of marriage nor a session compelled to use church property for a service of marriage.
  2. Can a pastor in a state where it is not permitted perform a wedding in a state where it is?The teaching elder has freedom of conscience. Beyond that, it would depend on whether the teaching elder is authorized under civil law to perform a wedding in the state where the wedding is to take place
  3. Will sessions have the authority to permit (or not) same-gender marriage services in the church? Yes. Nothing has changed about the authority of sessions in the way church property is used.
  4. If a pastor is willing to preside at the marriage of a same-gender couple, can the session prohibit the pastor from doing so?No. The session cannot compel the pastor nor can the pastor compel the session.

    The pastor has the freedom of his or her own conscience and the session has the responsibility for providing for worship and making decisions about the use of church property.

  5. Can the session make a categorical prohibition of same-gender weddings in its building?
    Yes. Nothing has changed about the authority of the session with regard to the use of the church building.
  6. What process did the General Assembly use to make this happen?The General Assembly made an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution and proposed an amendment to the Constitution.
  7. What is an authoritative interpretation (AI)?An AI is an interpretation of the Constitution by the General Assembly or the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. It is binding on all councils.
  8. What is permitted according to the AI at the adjournment of the assembly?Pastors may conduct a marriage service for same-gender couples and may do so where the community gathers for worship with the permission of the session. “In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word and the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
  9. What is an amendment to the Constitution?An amendment to the Constitution is determined by the General Assembly, but must be confirmed by a majority of the presbyteries. All councils are under the authority of the Constitution.

FAQs – Same-Gender Marriage

10. What if the presbyteries refuse to vote on the amendment?

A majority of the presbyteries must vote for the amendment in order for it to become part of the Constitution. A non-vote has the effect of a “no” vote.

11. If the presbyteries do not approve changes to the Constitution, what is the effect on the authoritative interpretation (“AI”)?

The AI remains in place until it is superseded by another.

12. What is the timeline?

The same-gender marriage measure (the AI) takes effect upon the conclusion of the General Assembly on Saturday, June 21, 2014. The proposed amendment must be ratified by a majority of the church’s 172 presbyteries, which have one year to vote. If ratified, the amendment would take effect on June 21, 2015.

13. What shall we tell the media?
Please see the official press release, or refer calls to PC(USA) offices.

What is the actual language of the authoritative interpretation?

“Worship is a central element of the pastoral care of the people of God (W-6.3001, W-6.3010) in which a teaching elder’s discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit is indispensable. The necessity of ensuring the exercise of freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) in the planning and leadership of worship has deep roots in our Reformed tradition and theology. Because a service of marriage is one form of such worship, when a couple requests the involvement of the church in solemnizing their marriage as permitted by the laws of the civil jurisdiction in which the marriage is to take place, teaching elders* have the pastoral responsibility to assess the capabilities, intentions, and readiness of the couple to be married (W-4.9002), and the freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) to participate in any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform.

“Exercising such discretion and freedom of conscience under the prayerful guidance of Scripture, teaching elders may conduct a marriage service for any such couple in the place where the community gathers for worship, so long as it is approved by the session; or in such other place as may be suitable for a service of Christian worship. In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The authoritative interpretation of this section by the 203rd General Assembly (1991) (Minutes, 1991, Part I, p. 395, paragraphs 21.124–.128), and the subsequent authoritative interpretations of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission relying upon it, are withdrawn and replaced with this authoritative interpretation.”

*“As in other places in the Directory for Worship, the use of ‘teaching elders’ in this paragraph should be understood to include ruling elders commissioned to pastoral service.”

What is the actual language of the proposed amendment?

Amend W-4.9000 by striking the current text and replacing it with the following:

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people (traditionally a man and a woman) to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community.

FAQs – Same-Gender Marriage

“In civil law, marriage is a contract that recognizes the rights and obligations of the married couple in society. In the Reformed tradition, marriage is also a covenant in which God has an active part, and which the community of faith publicly witnesses and acknowledges.

“If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract. A couple requesting a service of Christian marriage shall receive instruction from the teaching elder, who may agree to the couple’s request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its values. In making this decision, the teaching elder may seek the counsel of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church property for a marriage service.

“The marriage service shall be conducted in a manner appropriate to this covenant and to the forms of Reformed worship, under the direction of the teaching elder and the supervision of the session (W- 1.4004–.4006). In a service of marriage, the couple marry each other by exchanging mutual promises. The teaching elder witnesses the couple’s promises and pronounces God’s blessing upon their union. The community of faith pledges to support the couple in upholding their promises; prayers may be offered for the couple, for the communities that support them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness.

“A service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith may be appropriate when requested by the couple. The service will be similar to the marriage service except that the statements made shall reflect the fact that the couple is already married to one another according to the laws of the civil jurisdiction.

“Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes is contrary to the teaching elder’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”

 

Pastoral Letter from General Assembly Moderator

To congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Earlier today, the 221st General Assembly (2014) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a recommendation from its Assembly Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues allowing for pastoral discretion to perform “any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform,” where legal by state law.
They also approved a recommendation to change language in the Book of Order to indicate that “marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”
Both decisions came with much thought, discussion, and prayer, and clearly the entire body that is the PC(USA) will be interpreting these actions for some time.
Please know that the same triune God in whom we place our hope, faith, and trust in is still in control, and that the assembly’s action today is the result of deep discernment to hear God’s voice and discern God’s will.
We concur with the feelings expressed by Teaching Elder Commissioner Jeffrey Bridgeman, moderator of the Assembly Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues, during his presentation to the assembly.
“The apostle Paul tells us that ours is, in fact, ‘the ministry of reconciliation’ as ‘ambassadors of Christ,’ and he died for us so that we might be reconciled, that we might become reconcilers,” Bridgeman said.
In this season of both happiness and sadness over the assembly’s decisions, we call on you to remember the overflowing grace and love God gifts us with, and to take seriously our charge to bestow the same grace and love on one another.
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,

Ruling Elder Heath K. Rada
Moderator, 221st General Assembly (2014)

The Reverend Gradye Parsons

Stated Clerk of the General Assembly

Ruling Elder Linda Bryant Valentine

Executive Director, Presbyterian Mission Agency

Civil Union and Marriage

As everyone probably knows by now the breaking news out of General Assembly yesterday was the passing of two overtures from the Committee on Civil Unions and Marriage. The first overture that passed, overwhelmingly, was an “Authoritative Interpretation” (AI) on the Directory for Worship. The AI gives Teaching Elders (Pastors) permission to perform marriage ceremonies for all people, in states where it is legal. The AI is not binding, which means a pastor may, out of personal conscience, decline to perform a marriage ceremony. In addition, the Session of each church may approve or disapprove of a ceremony for a same gender couple being performed in that church’s building. The pastor would then be free to perform the ceremony in another appropriate setting.

The second action taken was to recommend a change to the wording in the section on marriage in the Directory of Worship. Specifically, where it says that marriage is between a man and a woman, the wording would be changed to “two people (traditionally a man and a woman)”. The words “(traditionally a man and a woman)” was, in fact, an amendment moved on the floor of the General Assembly, by John Wilkinson, of Third Presbyterian Church, in Rochester. He made the amendment out of pastoral concern for those churches who are deeply troubled by the overture. This particular overture, since it is a change in our constitution, will be sent to every Presbytery over the next12 months, for approval or disapproval.

While the overture to change the wording in the Directory for Worship must go to every presbytery to be voted on, and, if approved by 3/4 of the presbyteries, wouldn’t take effect for 12 months, the Authoritative Interpretation takes effect immediately. In the event that the overture being sent to the presbyteries fails, the Authoritative Interpretation will still stand. A majority of presbyteries must approve the overture for the change to be made to the Directory of Worship.

The actual wording of the overture is that “when a couple requests the involvement of the church in solemnizing their marriage as permitted by the laws of the civil jurisdiction in which the marriage is to take place, teaching elders (or commissioned ruling elders serving congregations) have the pastoral responsibility to assess the capabilities, intentions, and readiness of the couple to be married, and the freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture to participate in any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform. Exercising such discretion and freedom of conscience under the prayerful guidance of Scripture, teaching elders may perform a marriage service for any such couple in the place where the community gathers for worship, so long as it is approved by the session; or in such other place as may be suitable for a service of Christian marriage. In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.”

If that is as clear as mud, I understand. The media is not being all that helpful with its misinterpretation of what was actually passed. The General Assembly is also preparing a FAQ, and as soon as I have that I will share it with you. This is an important discussion for all of us to have, and will be easier to have in person, after I return from GA.

By now, you must know, that I support this overture, as I supported the overture from 2010 on the ordination of Gay or Lesbian Teaching Elders (Pastors). Pastorally, I know that not everyone agrees with or supports this Authoritative Interpretation. So, my strong concern is that we talk, that we share our opinions, our feelings and our faith positions on this, and that most importantly we continue, as we have in the past, to live together in our diversity.

The GA also passed important overtures from other committees as well, including efforts to strengthen ecumenical relationship with other denominations and religions, an overture on gun violence, an overture to strengthen the Peacemaking offering, and many others. If you go to pc-biz.org, you can see all of the committee’s overtures presented and what action was taken by the General Assembly.
Dave

My Walk to GA

IMAG0220IMAG0222IMAG0219

The COBO Center includes the building on the right, all the way down to the round building in the background.

The COBO Center includes the building on the right, all the way down to the round building in the background.

Look out of COBO at the Detroit River. Canada is on the opposite bank of the River.

Look out of COBO at the Detroit River. Canada is on the opposite bank of the River.

A very impressive and imposing bronze statue of Joe Louis, in the lobby of the COBO Center.

A very impressive and imposing bronze statue of Joe Louis, in the lobby of the COBO Center.

Yes, while on break, I just had to visit the Motown Museum. It was an amazing story !

Yes, while on break, I just had to visit the Motown Museum. It was an amazing story
!

Belhar Confession Adopted by GA

On Wednesday the General Assembly approved the addition of a new confession to our Book of Confessions, The Belhar Confession. When you get a chance, you can read the confession at http://www.pcusa.org/belhar

“The Confession of Belhar is a powerful confession of Christian faith that emerged in South Africa during the years of Apartheid. It is named for the city in South Africa where it was first adopted. It is a statement that focuses on three themes, Unity, Reconciliation, and Justice, in a church environment where racial separation made it impossible for brothers and sisters in Christ to worship together or come to the Lord’s Table together. Churches around the globe have recognized the power and theological insight of Belhar as an expression of Scriptural truth for their own contexts.”
PCUSA/Belhar

Historically, the confessions have been written in response to particular situations. For example, the Westminster Confession spoke specifically to the role of the monarchy and the sovereignty of God. The Barmen Declaration addressed the sin of idolatry during the rise of national socialism in Germany in the 1930’s.
In these cases, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has made the judgment that these confessions written in particular situations articulate for the PC(USA) who we are, what we believe, and what we resolve to do. Only two of our eleven confessional statements were written by the Presbyterian Church. Each of the others has been adopted as our confession.

“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is again facing a critical time in its history. We are rent apart by division and schism, we have yet to directly confront and confess the racism that has been a significant force in our own history, and we have shown a failure of resolve to make courageous stands for justice. We believe that the Confession of Belhar, a profound statement on unity, reconciliation, and justice in the church, comes to us as a word from God for this particular time and place for the PC(USA).” The Special Committee on the Confession of Belhar

On Monday, I wrote about an overture that recommended Teaching Elders (Pastors) “to assume the moral responsibility of participating in the administrative costs of this church by paying per capita each year, as other church members do”. My objection to this overture had to do with the language of ‘moral responsibility’ (see my blog from Monday “Per Capita” for more explanation). The overture was passed in our committee, which meant it would go to the whole General Assembly for a vote. Today the overture came before the whole General Assembly and it was voted down (which should prove to all of you how very wise your pastor is – sorry, it’s getting very late :).
Dave

Conversation and Discernment

On Tuesday, my committee (General Assembly Procedures) spent the day reviewing minutes, and motions, from the Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies. The CRBA was formed in 2010 to review and suggest changes for biennial meetings. Some of the changes are merely tweaks, others are hopefully more substantive.
Carol McDonald (Chair of the Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies) explained how she hopes one change in the way GA does things will allow more room for the Spirit of God to work among us.
“On Thursday morning, June 19, the plenary meeting of the Assembly will be a time for conversation and discernment, rather than a time for debate.  The Moderator of the Assembly, in partnership with the Stated Clerk, will select two critical/key/potentially contentious issues being brought to the plenary from two of the Assembly Standing Committees.  Each committee Moderator will make a 5 minute presentation to the Assembly – being clear about what it is the Assembly will be asked to vote on.  Following each presentation, groups of 8 will be invited to be in conversation: a.) What did you hear that might lead someone to support the committee’s recommendation(s)? b.) what did you hear that might keep someone from supporting the committee’s recommendation(s)?  Following the small group conversations, the Assembly Moderator will ascertain that what the Assembly will be asked to vote on is clear and will then lead the Assembly in prayer. The hope of the Biennial Review Committee is that this non-parliamentary plenary with informal discussion of key issues will hopefully change the way critical and contentious issues are then debated and decided upon.(1)  It is our prayer that all commissioners and advisory delegates, during this time of conversation, will have both the opportunity to speak and the privilege of being heard.”
This will be an unusual departure from the way we do things, ‘decently and in order’, as Presbyterians. Two of the most potentially contentious overtures that will be brought from committees to the main floor this year have to do with Israeli/Palestinian issues and Civil Union and Marriage issues. Say a prayer for GA as it tries to ‘discern God’s will’, not only on these overtures, but everything that comes before it on the floor.
Our daily schedule at GA has gone like this so far. On Saturday afternoon, the whole assembly met together from 2:30-midnight. Sunday morning was left open for attending a local church, and then at 2:30pm the the whole assembly met until 5:00pm. At 7:30pm were began work in our committees, adjourning at 10:00pm. Monday, we met in our committees from 9:30am-9:30pm. Tuesday we met 8:30am-5:00pm. It’s a bit of a marathon. I’m exhausted, but it’s a ‘good tired’. I have not been bored for a single moment. Tuesday afternoon, a couple of us were thinking of taking in a Tigers baseball game at 7:00pm, since we had the evening free. By the time we adjourned at 5:00pm I was so tired I went back to my hotel and crashed for the evening. We have Wednesday morning free, as we finished our committee work Tuesday afternoon, and then we begin meeting as the whole assembly Wednesday afternoon at 2:30pm.

Dave
Random Quotes
“The answer to “how?”, is “yes”. Don’t focus so excessively on the ‘how’ that it blocks the imagination of ‘yes’. Rather, say ‘how….how fascinating’. (Chair of Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies)

“You cultivate what you celebrate.” (GA Commissioner)

“At the end of a long day of meetings you develop what’s known as ‘after 9:00pm sarcasm’.”

Per Capita

Do you know when the Presbyterian church first started asking congregations to contribute Per Capita? It was in 1807. There were only 13 colonies at that time, and the General Assembly met in Philadelphia every year (it moves around the US now). Those traveling far distances to attend the GA were obviously burdened with greater cost than those living in relative proximity to Philadelphia. First, a request was made to presbyteries close to Philadelphia to contribute to the travel expenses of those living further away. That request was denied. The next year General Assembly approved an overture to begin collecting Per Capita from every presbytery in order to equalize the cost of all commissioners attending GA.

Grayde Parsons (I love that name), our General Assembly Stated Clerk, shared that story as he spoke to an overture before our committee. In essence the overture asks the General Assembly to approve a request that Teaching Elders (The Book of Order’s official title for Pastors) “to assume the moral responsibility of participating in the administrative costs of this church by paying per capita each year, as other church members do”. The motion to approve the overture passed, and will now go to a vote of the whole General Assembly.

Teaching Elders are not members of the congregation that they pastor. They are members of the Presbytery in which they pastor. Thus the overture seeks to include Teaching Elders in the opportunity or responsibility to participate administrative costs of the church by pay paying per capita. I voted against the overture. I am not opposed to Teaching Elders paying. In fact I pay the voluntary per capita amount that we ask members of our congregation to pay. I voted against it because I was opposed to the wording “to assume the moral responsibility …” Per cap it is not a moral responsibility. I have never told any member of our congregation that it is their moral responsibility to pay the per capita. It is a benevolence offering, and the Presbyterian Church’s Permanent Judicial Commission has also ruled that per capita is a benevolence offering on the part of members of local congregations. It is not my way of saying I don’t want to pay per capita. I do it gladly. Neither is it a question of semantics or splitting hairs. I do not want to lose the meaning of paying one’s per capita as a benevolence, a gift, generously given by either a member of the congregation or a Teaching Elder.